ML20012E872
| ML20012E872 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012E870 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004060482 | |
| Download: ML20012E872 (3) | |
Text
'
I I-s us
\\
8[o UNITS 0 sTATss
, v.
q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N E,
./
uppo tow, p. c. pops J
)
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
RELATED TO AltENDMENT NO. Itil TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-66
)
J Ati[NDMENT N0. 28 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-73 Dtl0VESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHID EDI50N CterANY i
FE!!!!5YLVANIA POWER WANY
{
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY j
~ THE TOLEDO ED150N COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 l
DOCKET NOS. 50 334 AND 50-412 l
It:TRODUCTION l
i By letter dated October 16 1989. Duquesne Light Company (the licensee acting l
asagantfortheaboveutilities)submittedarequesttochangemiscellaneous j
requirements in the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications. We have reviered that request and our evaluation follows i
E'ISCUS$10tl At!D EVALUATION (1) Unit 1 Specification 4.7.13.1.a Regarding the Auxiliary River Water System t
The auxiliary river water pumps are classified as non nuclear safety l
(Nt:S) and as such are not required to be tested in accordance with the i
inserviceTesting(IST)programperASMESectionXI. This proposed change will eliminate the current requirement for testing these NHS pumps three times as of ten as safety-related pumps that are only required to be tested quarterly.
The maintenance and operations history of these pumps does not reflect the need to retain the monthly testing frequency. We agree with the licensee's justification and find this change acceptable.
l The requirement to cycle power-operated discharge valves was eliminated by Amendment No.117 (October 27 1987). The justification used was that all l
safety related valves are cycled as part of the IST program, and need not be cycled in addition to that. The motor-operated discharge valves of this system are already tested under the IST program. Therefore, we find it acceptable to eliminate the valve cycling requirement.
i 9004060482 900321 DR ADOCK 0500 4
1
' The licensee also proposed to' eliminate the requirement to operate each pump for at least 15 minutes during testing. A similar 15-minute test i
requirement has been eliminated for safety-related pumps by Amendment No.
j 117, on the basis that such requirement was even more stringent than that in ASME section XI. We therefore find the elimination of the 15-minute test requirement.for these NN$ pumps acceptable.
(2) Unit 2 Specification 4.7.13.1.s Regarding Standby Service Water System Similar to the Unit 1 Auxiliary River Water surveillance requirement, Unit 2 surveillance requirement 4.7.13.1.4 for the Standby Service Water System l
has been revised to reflect the quarterly testing requirements of the other pumps in the Technical $pecifications. The licensee has comitted 1
in Updated FSAR Section g.2.1.2.4 to test these pumps periodically during unit operation NHS and have no, shutdown and refueling periods. These pumps are also i
role in mitigating design basis accident consequences. On i
such basis, these pumps do not have to be tested in accordance with the
,,i 151 program per ASME Section XI. We agree with the licensee's justification and find this change acceptable, t
I (3) Specification 4.7.8.1.b Regarding Supplemental Leak Collection and Release l
System (5LCR5) Surveillance i
I Surveillance requirement 4.7.8.1.b has been revised by replacing 'and" with "or'.
The "and" implies that more than one condition must be satisfied before the surveillance testing is performed. However, the intsnt of the surveillance requirement is to require testing after satisfying only one of the stated conditions. This is expressed by the use of "or" where only one condition need be satisfied before the required l
surveillance testing is perfomed. The use of *or" in place of "and" renders the specification more conservative regarding surveillance frequency. We find it acceptable.
l (4) Srecifications 3.7.9.1. 4.7.9.1.1 and 4.7.9.1.F. All Regarding Sealed 5eurce Contamination These specifications have been revised to conform vertatim with corres >onding requirements in the Standard Technical Specification for Westinghouse Reactors l
(WSTS,HUREG-0452 Revision 4). All changes are editorial except the adoption i
oftheWSTSlimitIngconditionforonration(LC0). The revised LC0 changes the range of sources controlled by ttis specification to sealed sources in excess of 100 microcuries of beta-and/or gama-emitting material or 5 microcuries of alpha-emitting material.
"his will substantially reduce the requirements for testing and reporting inconsequential leakage from sealed sources of low activity materials. Sealed sources are not considered in the FSAR safety analyses but are administrative 1y controlled as a routine occupational exposure concern of the NRC-approved radiological centrols program in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20.
t I
f' q
[
i I
l 3
l Changes to these specifications clarify them and bring them into conformance with the staff's position as expressed in the WSTS. These changes are acceptable.
($) Specification 4.7.9.1.3. Regarding Reporting of Sealed Source Contamination This specification is revised to conform with the reporting requirements in Specification 6.9.2.
The old specification required a 90. day report on detected contamination on sealed sources while Specifications 6.9.2 requires an annual report. ThechangeelimInatestheconflict but has no i
negativeeffectsono>erationalsafetysincetheaffectedrequIrementis l
concerned only with tie submittel frequency of a written report. This change is acceptable.
(6) Unit 1 Bases 3/4.9.12 and 3/4.9.13. Fuel Building Yent11ation 5.ystem This bases section has been revised to correct an error in describing the I
supplemental Leak Collection and kelease system (SLCRS). The old bases ttated The SLCR$ portion of the ventilation system is safety related and i
continuously filters the fuel building exhaust air,' This was incorrect, since although the $LCR$ takes suction from the fuel building to maintain a negative pressure, the normal exhaust air is not filtered through the main l
filter banks. However, upon a high radiation signal, the exhaust air flow is diverted through the main filter banks prior to discharge to the atrosphere. The revised section correctly states these facts to confom with the actual design and as-built hardware, and is acceptable.
El!YlP01'l'Et;TAL CONSIDERATION h
This amcndtents change requireunts with respect to the installation or use of j
facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Fert 20 and change surveillarce requirements. We have detemined that the i
awndn.trts involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant charpe in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. We have previously issued a proposed finding that these atendt.ents involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
S CONCLUSION We have concluded based on the considerations discussed shove, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health end safety of the Wblic l
will not be endangered by operation in the prososed manner, and l2) such activities will be conducted in compliance wit 1 the Commission's l
regulations, and (3) the issuance of these amendnents will not be inimical to the cemen defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: March 21. 1990 t
Principal Contributor: Peter S. Tam i
_